Well I'll have to agree with Tulkas on some of these points, but I think the AT&T TOS seems to play a major role here, and Google's user of user data.

I do agree with Tulkas about GV not replacing Apple's interface. That does seem like dodging the issue, though not very deftly.

I'm still conflicted about how I should feel about all this. I'm quite satisfied with the way things are at the moment.

Put it this way. Apple clearly states they would have no problem with Google doing the GV app as a web app. This would provide pretty much 100% of the functionality of the GV app running natively. So, if they have a problem with the native app replacing features this way, why no problem with a web app doing the same thing? Why indeed.

A web app would not have Push Notifications. This cuts down on how complete a replacement users would find it for the built in VVM and SMS features. These features would be fully available in a web app, but if you aren't notified immediately of a new message, users won't stop using the built in apps for VVM and SMS.

So, Apple has no problem with google providing a 'replacement UI' for all of these features...or anyone else, as there are already other apps doing them one at a time. The problem is how well Google might do it. They might do it so well that mass number of users (outside of the US) would drop their VVM and SMS options. Dropping VVM would cost Apple money.

If Google were to offer to cripple their app to not use the APN API, I would wager that Apple would allow the app immediately. But, if Google were to offer completely gut the app and make it just an App that received Push Noticications from GV but had to launch the GV web app to access any functions, Apple would deny that app...because it would turn even the web app into a potential replacement for the built in apps.

RIM 'allows' GV app on the BlackBerries. RIM has no VVM (yet) and so nothing to lose if users use GV fulltime...

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

Put it this way. Apple clearly states they would have no problem with Google doing the GV app as a web app. This would provide pretty much 100% of the functionality of the GV app running natively. So, if they have a problem with the native app replacing features this way, why no problem with a web app doing the same thing? Why indeed.

A web app would not have Push Notifications. This cuts down on how complete a replacement users would find it for the built in VVM and SMS features. These features would be fully available in a web app, but if you aren't notified immediately of a new message, users won't stop using the built in apps for VVM and SMS.

So, Apple has no problem with google providing a 'replacement UI' for all of these features...or anyone else, as there are already other apps doing them one at a time. The problem is how well Google might do it. They might do it so well that mass number of users (outside of the US) would drop their VVM and SMS options. Dropping VVM would cost Apple money.

If Google were to offer to cripple their app to not use the APN API, I would wager that Apple would allow the app immediately. But, if Google were to offer completely gut the app and make it just an App that received Push Noticications from GV but had to launch the GV web app to access any functions, Apple would deny that app...because it would turn even the web app into a potential replacement for the built in apps.

RIM 'allows' GV app on the BlackBerries. RIM has no VVM (yet) and so nothing to lose if users use GV fulltime...

Google specifically said in their New York Times article that the Web Version wouldn't allow all of the features to be used to their fullest potential.

Edit.
You have to click on "Letter" in the last paragraph of the PDF letter to the FCC for the full reply from Google. Trust me, it's worth the time to read it.

Google specifically said in their New York Times article that the Web Version wouldn't allow all of the features to be used to their fullest potential.

Maybe. Do you have a link for that? I don't think google had formaly commented publically on their plans for a web app for the iPhone. The only reference I recall was Pogue saying he had spoken to a product manager at google that said it would be fully featured. I dug up the quote

Quote:

"Google says it is readying a replacement for the Google Voice app that will offer exactly the same features as the rejected app—except that it will take the form of a specialized, iPhone-shaped Web page. For all intents and purposes, it will behave exactly the same as the app would have; you can even install it as an icon on your Home screen"

I would tend to agree. For all intents and purposes, most of the main features could be replicated through a web app. But, as I said, without Push, it would fail to become a fulltime replacement for most users. and yeah, it could do everything the native app wold do and without Push, then I would say it is not doing it to its full potential.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

Put it this way. Apple clearly states they would have no problem with Google doing the GV app as a web app. This would provide pretty much 100% of the functionality of the GV app running natively.

Incorrect. GV currently has an iPhone "optimized" web interface. Sucks compared to the best native iPhone app, Sean Kovacs GV Mobile. And we're pretty safe in assuming that the Google GV app would have been way ahead of GV Mobile, no offense to Sean.

Maybe. Do you have a link for that? I don't think google had formaly commented publically on their plans for a web app for the iPhone. The only reference I recall was Pogue saying he had spoken to a product manager at google that said it would be fully featured. I dug up the quote

I would tend to agree. For all intents and purposes, most of the main features could be replicated through a web app. But, as I said, without Push, it would fail to become a fulltime replacement for most users. and yeah, it could do everything the native app wold do and without Push, then I would say it is not doing it to its full potential.

Incorrect. GV currently has an iPhone "optimized" web interface. Sucks compared to the best native iPhone app, Sean Kovacs GV Mobile. And we're pretty safe in assuming that the Google GV app would have been way ahead of GV Mobile, no offense to Sean.

Edit:I'll just say a mobile optimized site is not the same as an iphone web app.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

... The [Google Voice] application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhones distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhones core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone. For example, on an iPhone, the Phone icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apples mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apples Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apples Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hubreplacing the iPhones text messaging feature. In addition, the iPhone users entire Contacts database is transferred to Googles servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. ...

I will start off by saying that I'm not a fan of Google, am a fan but not a fanboy of Apple, and am somewhat neutral on AT&T, at least in comparison to other wireless carriers. (I think most of the responses from those who actually seemed to have read the article and Q&A, and even those who didn't, break down pretty much along the lines of how one feels about the respective companies, so, no point in leaving any doubt.) I also have zero interest in using GV or most other Google services.

First, as to the part about, "that [the iPhone users entire Contacts database] will only be used in appropriate ways," I think the only appropriate way this could be used by Google is, not at all. However, I doubt very much that Google does not make very intensive use of all the contact, and other, information you give them, wittingly or unwittngly. If Apple is truly sincere in what they say here, then, I applaud them.

(Of course, the cynic in me wonders if this isn't just smoke, although, the idealist hopes not.)

As for the rest, I'm somewhat surprised to find that AT&T was not at least in part behind the rejection/holdup of GV.

I'm also sympathetic to Apple's position here. (And, since I have no interest in GV, clearly, I'm not upset by not being able to use it. Replace, duplicate, mimic, call it what you will, it seems pretty clear that the purpose of the GV app is to take over the telephony/messaging/contacts user experience, effectively turning the iPhone into a tool to serve Googles ends, at least for those users who would use GV. I can clearly see why Apple would view this as a competitor's Trojan Horse.

And, while perhaps not for posters on this forum, if the GV app works according to Apple's rather summary description, I do think it could potentially cause a not insignificant amount of user confusion. For example, if a relatively non tech savvy person installs the GV app and starts intermixing use of it with the built in apps of the same functionality, they might well find it confusing that they have voicemails in two different places, receive text messages in two different apps, and so on.

Obviously, this also creates a potential support problem for Apple. I mean, it's not like you can call Google for support, can you? (Well, honestly, I don't know, but I'm not aware of any Google service that they offer phone support for.) And would some users not even distinguish which app they are trying to call or message from, or would they not just assume it's "an iPhone problem" and call Apple, perhaps neglecting to mention that they aren't using the built-in apps for these things?

Still, I think the biggest problem Apple has with GV is, again, based on the summary description, its obvious intent of taking over the iPhone user experience for Google's benefit.

I know a lot of people think Google is an absolutely wonderful, benign company. I on the other hand think they tossed the "do no evil" plan pretty much before they wrote it down. To me at least, it's clear that they intend to control the technology world, and as much as they can reach beyond it, as much as they can, and on a scope that Microsoft never even imagined.

So, if Apple throws a roadblock in their way, in the interests of self preservation, that slows them down a bit, I have no problem with that.

So, then they never do actually say the web app "wouldn't allow all of the features to be used to their fullest potential", specifically or oetherwise. Instead, they correctly state that a native app would provide some advantages. Their specific example is access to the Phone address book. This is not a core function of the Google Voice Service.

In terms of the feature offered by the Google Voice Service, a web app could provide full functionality. But it would not have access to advantages provided by the OS..like access to the address book...or Push.

Pretty much what I said, though I did not specifically mention the address book. That it would lose Push is much more important than the address book. Though the address book would be a nice freebie from the OS too.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

I will start off by saying that I'm not a fan of Google, am a fan but not a fanboy of Apple, and am somewhat neutral on AT&T, at least in comparison to other wireless carriers. (I think most of the responses from those who actually seemed to have read the article and Q&A, and even those who didn't, break down pretty much along the lines of how one feels about the respective companies, so, no point in leaving any doubt.) I also have zero interest in using GV or most other Google services.

First, as to the part about, "that [the iPhone user’s entire Contacts database] will only be used in appropriate ways," I think the only appropriate way this could be used by Google is, not at all. However, I doubt very much that Google does not make very intensive use of all the contact, and other information you give them, wittingly or unwittngly. If Apple is truly sincere in what they say here, then, I applaud them.
.

I have at leat 4 apps that use my contacts to invite/reply to my friends and iTunes allows you to synch your contacts with Google Gmail. I don't know how any of them are using my contact list (and don't care).

Does Apple tell you what your contact list is used in MobileMe? Are they selling it or compiling information on what you're doing, who your contacting, where your GPS says you are?

I don't know, but all of these have been used for examples of Google doing wrong.

Why are any of these different than what GV is trying to get aprroved?

My take on the interesting part is how Apple & AT&T are both pointing the finger at each other and nobody is pointing the finger at Google (because they did no wrong).

i'm not sure apple is pointing fingers - at least not openly/directly. it reads to me as if apple has agreed to take the blame, att is pointing fingers, google is requesting to be redacted.. and my attention span is... look! a pony!

Still, I think the biggest problem Apple has with GV is, again, based on the summary description, its obvious intent of taking over the iPhone user experience for Google's benefit.

Google Voice was not developed with the iPhone as a target for competition. It just so happens that Google Voice offers things the iPhone does not on its own; it is a compelling and free product that Apple is too scared to allow as fair competition.

This response is a lie. Apple is actively engaged in restraint of trade via illegal monopolistic control of the app store. In fact, the whole notion of an exclusive Apple Store without alternatives is monopolistic and flagrant restraint of trade.

Notice the response to question 5? Not one word about the banning of Netshare, not one word about Adobe Flash being permanently banned from the iPhone.

But here's the lucky part for Apple: the FCC, FTC, and just about every other govt. regulatory body charged with oversight of corporate behavior are so full of cowards and layabouts that nothing substantive will come of any of this no matter how much Apple lies in depositions.

Apple is actively banning any and all products that show even the slightest potential of interfering with the iPhone revenue stream, not only Apples but ATT's as well (Until Apple decides to kick them to the curb, of course.) Everybody knows this. It is no secret. This "response" is a big puff of smoke up the FCC's rectum.

No one cares about this outside of the Mac internet forums. And I find myself caring less and less about it the more play this story gets.

It doesn't deserve this much attention. It's a single app, which on its own isn't very impressive to begin with.

Take a look at who covered this today (besides the FCC).

AP
New York Times
Reuters
USA Today
CNN
CNBC
CNet
And every Tech forum on the internet.

Yep, they all read Mac Forums and not the Facts.

It's a single App that is right now the biggest competitor to the iPhone.

Google introduced Google Chrome to Linux and it has become the most used Linux browser ever.

Google allows anyone to give their apps away for free (either in their store or from a 3rd pary site). This doesn't fit Apple's 60% Margin Profit for a product.

Google is the next Microsoft. It's only a matter of time and Steve Jobs lead the way by allowing them to show the world how great their Apps were while they were planning a full battle with them on the mobile, OS, Netbook and Cloud arena.

I think I looked at all the other comments and can't believe I'm the first to comment on the "other important parts" of the story....

....when announced, the App Store sounded like an extension of the model established by the iTunes Store... ....and seemed to fit nicely into the entire "seamless Apple ecosystem," provide "one stop shopping," be "convenient for developers of all sizes," etc., etc., but it is clearer day by day that the App Store is another creature altogether, with - I think - some very troubling implications which will only grow down the road.

First, it is very different from the iTunes store in key and fundamental ways. The iTunes store is NOT the only place one can buy media product to run on their iDevice. Get it from Amazon. Rip it from a CD or DVD. Other sources may have smaller catalogs, but still offer material not available through the iTunes store. (Beatles songs - at least until 9/9 - as one example.)

AND conversely, one can play material purchased from the iTunes store on non-Apple devices and incorporate it into apps other than iTunes. App store apps run only on iPhones. And the app store is the only place to get ANY software without voiding your contract with Apple by "jailbreaking" the device.

Developers may be the ones setting their own prices, but this is clearly a form of supply monopoly Apple (and perhaps few other companies) have never attempted with other computing devices. ANYONE can market any app for a Mac - or that matter, an MS PC, Linux PC, and, if I'm not mistaken, all the major gaming platforms, without passing a "mother may I" test from Apple (or Ubuntu or MS or Sony or Nintendo) - whether it duplicates part of the "core functionality" of the device's native OS's and apps, e.g., Mozilla, Opera and Chrome being used to replace IE or Safari, or potentially compromises the running of those systems in the eyes of their makers or not, e.g, all of the Windows utilities which may completely hose Windows in attempting to "clean the registry," etc., etc.

Apple's rejection of Google Voice (done on their own) is not totally unlike China's rejecting search engines that allow queries including the word "freedom." And takes "proprietary" to new heights, even if proprietary now means "Apple and willing fellow travelers," rather than just Apple itself.

Which brings me to my second point: Apple is setting itself up as judge and jury over the exercise of "speech," i.e., setting its own standards of censorship. They clearly state their view of what's acceptable as the supposed American mindset that blowing people's (even iconic people's) heads off is fine as long as it's labeled as "mature" (and what's mature about gore and violence?!!?), but that the American public must be protected from any mobile computer application which might display human female breasts - protected by that final line of defense heroically offered by - Apple, Inc.

WTF?? (In fairness, I'll point out that Google does the same on YouTube, and additionally allows vile hate speech and the entire range of epithet-filled language, but again, no nipples, in YT videos - and that Apple offers numerous f-word filled podcasts for free on the IT store.)

But in iPhone Appland, besides making Apple the unelected, unaccountable, bluenose avatar of what and what isn't "appropriate" for its users in "apps," isn't such content freely available on websites reachable via Safari on the iPhone anyway??

And in saying that it reserves the right to ban apps that are, if not pornographic or dangerous to the efficient running of its devices, it includes its prerogative to ban apps it deems "defamatory."

Which to me implies if someone developed an app which included content such as this very post, e.g., taking Apple to task and criticizing its practices, cultures, and standards, especially in harsher terms than I'm using here, how likely do you think Apple would be to approve said "defamatory" app for sale in its store?

There are bad and possibly dangerous digital device precedents being set here where a private corporation is assuming the right to make decisions - and sometimes decisions about morality and what constitutes "defamation," which have always been in the purview of users and other truly independent developers of and for personal computing devices.

I didn't originally have a lot of love for the "jailbreakers" of iPhones, but I'm starting to admire them and offer support more and more, 'cos I see their point now. I really hope they manage to find ways to keep the IPhone open to all of its potential legal uses while still keeping the OS up to date and not creating an unwarranteed brick.

You can say, OK, don't buy an iPhone (and be deprived of the premiere mobile pocket PC). And you might say that it's likely you won't find racy or other "problem" apps being offered in the Nokia, Pre, Verizon, etc. stores that are popping up faster than you can say "clone Apple's business and control model," but that doesn't make their practices any less corporate-authoritarian than Apple's.

Is it really in our interest for the next major computer platform (or even platforms) to have single suppliers of programs, especially if they assert unwarranted, arbitrary private powers over speech, morality, programming styles, program functions, etc.?

One can also argue these policies raise issues of restraint of trade. That is, Apple is also asserting here then, that it is the sole supplier of software for its platform, cutting out not only all brick and mortar retailers, but also every other e-merchant which might sacrifice margins to offer iPhone/iPod touch software for less by choking off all competition.

And if this stands, what's next? The Mac App store (as the only way to buy, install and run only applications Apple wants bought, installed and run on all Apple computers? And, following suit, the Windows App store, etc?

Again, to rephrase I said in the title of my post, am I the only one reminded of the world depicted in "Rollerball" by the marketing model that's growing right in front of us?

Put it this way. Apple clearly states they would have no problem with Google doing the GV app as a web app. This would provide pretty much 100% of the functionality of the GV app running natively. So, if they have a problem with the native app replacing features this way, why no problem with a web app doing the same thing? Why indeed.

A web app would not have Push Notifications. This cuts down on how complete a replacement users would find it for the built in VVM and SMS features. These features would be fully available in a web app, but if you aren't notified immediately of a new message, users won't stop using the built in apps for VVM and SMS.

So, Apple has no problem with google providing a 'replacement UI' for all of these features...or anyone else, as there are already other apps doing them one at a time. The problem is how well Google might do it. They might do it so well that mass number of users (outside of the US) would drop their VVM and SMS options. Dropping VVM would cost Apple money.

Do you have any source for your assertion that "dropping VVM would cost Apple money"?

Apple stated that Google Voice was, contrary to media reports, not rejected from the App Store, but remains under review. In addition, it stated that the software has been delayed solely by Apple.

Apple did note that it continues to fulfill the obligations of its contract with AT&T. The contract states that Apple will not allow the iPhone to access voice over IP services via the AT&T cellular network. Apple said it is unsure whether Google Voice includes VOIP elements in how it routes calls. However, the contract with AT&T did not specifically prohibit the Google Voice application from being approved -- that issue was entirely with the application's apparent mimicking of the iPhone's core features, Apple said.

AT&T also issued a statement Friday denying any involvement in the state of apparent limbo the Google Voice iPhone software currently finds itself in. AT&T and Apple both stated that AT&T was never contacted by Apple for consultation on the Google Voice application, but that the decision was made solely by the iPhone maker.

Apple and AT&T colluded to prevent AT&T from facing competition from Skype and Google Voice.

When Apple states that it makes the final decision in the approval process of applications, or that Google Voice has not been rejected, but is still under study, indefinite study, Apple is denying the obvious, i.e.:

1- The buyer of an iPhone owns the iPhone and can do as he pleases without interference from Apple;

2- By not approving in a timely manner the Google Voice applications, Apple is interferring with the property rights of iPhone buyers;

3- By enforcing a clause of its secret agreement with AT&T, and not approving software which makes uses of Voice over Internet Protocol, Apple is forcing its own contractual obligations on strangers who didn't sign anything with AT&T, i.e. software developpers, Google and iPhone buyers;

4- Anti-trust laws and Consumer Protection laws are matters of Public Policy which apply in spite of contracts that would attempt to deny, twart or restrict their application.

Apple and AT&T are guilty as charged. They should face heavy fines and a permanent injunction to stop their anti-competitive actions.

Equally important, Apple has showed its contempt for customers one time too many. Shame on you, Steve Jobs. Shame on you, Tim Cook.

Well, sure it's a shame about Google Voice - to some. I personally could care less. But every major app will have its cheerleaders, and if it promises something interesting and is ultimately rejected, there'll be crying over it.

Tech forums and tech writers are the one's applying the spin to all this. Once again it's the niche online interest groups that are projecting their interests onto the wider market. major news outlets pick up the story because suddenly a government agency is involved. If the FCC hadn't stepped in this story would have been dead in a matter of days.

Meanwhile, everyone, and I mean, EVERYONE is lining up to develop for the iPhone - often passing up other devices.

If you don't like what's on the App Store or Apple's policies, then you can go to one of the other vedors who I'm sure will offer a vastly better experience overall.

This response is a lie. Apple is actively engaged in restraint of trade via illegal monopolistic control of the app store. In fact, the whole notion of an exclusive Apple Store without alternatives is monopolistic and flagrant restraint of trade.

Here we go again. Apple does not have a monopoly in cell phones, so none of the above applies. Never has, and probably never will. End of story.

Back to the issue. What is the problem that Apple sees with GV that they are still debating internally?

We can now exclude AT&T as the driving force, as both AT&T and Apple make clear.

Apple says Google Voice is an App that messes with the simplicity of Apple's Phone, Messages, and Contacts apps. We know that Apple doesn't care if its app functions are duplicated within the Safari browser, and we know Apple does sometimes care if its functions are replaced with an App. What isn't clear is when does Apple care and when it doesn't care.

One possibility is that raised by Tulkas, which is that Apple cares when its own service needs to be protected, which is only necessary when a native App is used, as a web app wouldn't measure up to an optimized Apple App.

But another possibility is that Apple cares when a submitted App alters/replaces local data (that was otherwise created and maintained by the Apple App), AND when the local data is data that is accessible to all Apps (like contacts, songs, podcasts, photos) AND/OR when Apple's local App is callable by all other Apps (like Phone, Safari, iPod, Mail). This could cause confusion given the current APIs, though it could certainly be fixed through enhancements to the APIs (allowing users to change default Apps).

I haven't fully explored this, but it seems that many of the Apps rejected for "duplicates functionality" fits this criteria of impacting local data maintained by Apple's App but accessible to multiple Apps.

Is THAT what all this fuss is over?? I already have most of those features with my current provider, which I pay for, which work 100% of the time. I guess the conference calling might be interesting. maybe recording calls as well. But not enough for me to blow my fuse.

Edit:I'll just say a mobile optimized site is not the same as an iphone web app.

How about a vastly inferior user experience lacking large chunks of functionality according to at least one user who has actually used both the GV mobile web site and the GV Mobile app.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

No one cares about this outside of the Mac internet forums. And I find myself caring less and less about it the more play this story gets.

It doesn't deserve this much attention. It's a single app, which on its own isn't very impressive to begin with.

And we know this exactly how? Are we a Google Voice user? Did you beta the Google Voice app somehow? Were we even a GV Mobile customer by chance? Is this trolling thing of ours intentional or subconscious?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NonVendorFan

Take a look at who covered this today (besides the FCC).

AP
New York Times
Reuters
USA Today
CNN
CNBC
CNet
And every Tech forum on the internet.

How about a vastly inferior user experience lacking large chunks of functionality according to at least one user who has actually used both the GV mobile web site and the GV Mobile app.

And we know this exactly how? Are we a Google Voice user? Did you beta the Google Voice app somehow? Were we even a GV Mobile customer by chance? Is this trolling thing of ours intentional or subconscious?

And are we now going to admit to trolling and never having used the Google Voice app / service or did you want to go back and forth for a while? I hope its the former cause I'm getting a little sleepy.

Apple and AT&T colluded to prevent AT&T from facing competition from Skype and Google Voice.

What we have here is 3 companies about the same size --- and 2 people sat on both Google and Apple. If there were colluding, it would be Google and Apple.

Both Apple and Google are both building mobile phone OS'es --- it could be both companies trying to build Google Voice type of apps, but Apple trying to kill its competitor by stalling on app approval.

I love how people thinks that the carriers are some giant evil industry --- the fact is that 99.999999999% of the carriers worldwide are much much much much smaller than Apple and Google. A lot of people call Verizon the evil big red corp --- yet Verizon is 1/2 the size of Apple and 1/2 the size of Google. Vodafone is smaller than Apple and Google. T-Mobile in Germany is smaller than Apple and Google. DoCoMo is smaller than Apple and Google.

Apple and AT&T colluded to prevent AT&T from facing competition from Skype and Google Voice.

When Apple states that it makes the final decision in the approval process of applications, or that Google Voice has not been rejected, but is still under study, indefinite study, Apple is denying the obvious, i.e.:

1- The buyer of an iPhone owns the iPhone and can do as he pleases without interference from Apple;

2- By not approving in a timely manner the Google Voice applications, Apple is interferring with the property rights of iPhone buyers;

3- By enforcing a clause of its secret agreement with AT&T, and not approving software which makes uses of Voice over Internet Protocol, Apple is forcing its own contractual obligations on strangers who didn't sign anything with AT&T, i.e. software developpers, Google and iPhone buyers;

4- Anti-trust laws and Consumer Protection laws are matters of Public Policy which apply in spite of contracts that would attempt to deny, twart or restrict their application.

Apple and AT&T are guilty as charged. They should face heavy fines and a permanent injunction to stop their anti-competitive actions.

Lots of legal words used here but written with no legal understanding.

Maybe you should read AT&T's submission - it actually quoted Court decisions on the rights of companies to partner. (AT&T's submission was clearly written by lawyers; Apple's and Google's not so much.)

wrt 1, not exactly true; iPhone buyers agree to terms of service regarding warranties and cellular network use, so they own the iPhone but under a set of conditions if they are to use certain services. With regard to the App Store, Apple doesn't force you to use it, and if you do, you agree to more terms of service. Alternatively, one can jailbreak their iPhone and get their apps and repair services elsewhere.

wrt 2, any property rights one has on the iPhone doesn't extend to the App Store. Again, one can jailbreak their phone and get their apps and repair services elsewhere.

wrt 3, odds are those "strangers" all have signed contracts with AT&T or other carriers, because its damn hard to write usable iPhone apps without owning an iPhone. (And odds are Apple has similar contracts with all of its other carrier partners.)

"...we (AT&T) look forward to learning more about Google Voice based on that response, in particular, Google's position on the regulatory classification of Google Voice and the intercarrier compensation applicable to calls made using the Google Voice platform."

Its apple's phone.. its apple store. They can do whatever they want with it. If they don't like your App, then suck it up and make a new one. The point of the App store is to make apps to enhance and give extra perks to the phone. Not to replace the features that make it an iphone.

Also doesnt EVERYONE who creates an App for iphone (including google) need to purchase the SDK.. which lays out the FULL service agreement of what apple requires in apps and what their restrictions are... BEFORE the software is purchased? You can't agree to something, then turn around and complain about it.. especially when you are WELL aware your creating something the company is not OK with as you create it.

Total BS! I hope Apple and AT&T get their rear ends handed to them. Skype, Sling and GV all sould be allowed to use 3G. I'm paying for supposedly unlimited data (which also should be addressed in this investigation), How i use that data connection is up to me. It would be like Comcast telling me i can not have voip like Vonage because it offers phone service or i can't watch Hulu or other video services because it sells cable. I hope Google stays the course and does not back down as they are hope for freedom. God knows iPhone owners are too passive to fight back.

Frankly their use of the finger instead of a stylus is not innovative, a stlus provides more accurate control and one could have been added to give us choice. LG is developingone that works with capacitive screens Apple does not like giving consumers choice. It likes to decide for us. That is unamerican to the core. A dictatorship. The FCC should see through all this blatant BS and lies.

Its apple's phone.. its apple store. They can do whatever they want with it. If they don't like your App, then suck it up and make a new one. The point of the App store is to make apps to enhance and give extra perks to the phone. Not to replace the features that make it an iphone.

Also doesnt EVERYONE who creates an App for iphone (including google) need to purchase the SDK.. which lays out the FULL service agreement of what apple requires in apps and what their restrictions are... BEFORE the software is purchased? You can't agree to something, then turn around and complain about it.. especially when you are WELL aware your creating something the company is not OK with as you create it.

Seriously dude! Its my money, i pay for a service and the device. No they can't do whatever they want. So how does canning 3G use of Sling ehhance anything? They are dictators pure and simple. They do nothing to enhance my experience by denying me what i want. If AT&T's infrastructure is too weak to support their lofty claims then that's their fault.

Lots of legal words used here but written with no legal understanding.

Maybe you should read AT&T's submission - it actually quoted Court decisions on the rights of companies to partner. (AT&T's submission was clearly written by lawyers; Apple's and Google's not so much.)

wrt 1, not exactly true; iPhone buyers agree to terms of service regarding warranties and cellular network use, so they own the iPhone but under a set of conditions if they are to use certain services. With regard to the App Store, Apple doesn't force you to use it, and if you do, you agree to more terms of service. Alternatively, one can jailbreak their iPhone and get their apps and repair services elsewhere.

wrt 2, any property rights one has on the iPhone doesn't extend to the App Store. Again, one can jailbreak their phone and get their apps and repair services elsewhere.

wrt 3, odds are those "strangers" all have signed contracts with AT&T or other carriers, because its damn hard to write usable iPhone apps without owning an iPhone. (And odds are Apple has similar contracts with all of its other carrier partners.)

Again Seriously! Jaiklbreaking is all well and good if Apple isn't constantly trying to brick your iPhone with updates. Who fixes Apple software issues? You void any warranties on the phone thus have to pay ouf pocket for any hardware repairs, which is costly. If it can't be repaired then you have to pay full price for a new one. This is terrorism, plain and simple. Keep consumers passive through fear and intimidation which is why the majority of people don't jailbreak. Application developers would stand to save the fee it pays Apple for inclusion in the app store if they choose to ignore the App store and develop what they want. They stand to make more money that way and they can update things quickly. Apple and AT&T would loose control. Which why this BS has not worked with other smart phones and carriers in te past and why these same carriers are trying to follow the same model of a proprietary app store and restrict everything.

Cable companies went through something similar when they refused ISP access to their cable internet infrastructure (the highway if you will) which the FCC intervened and prevented.

This response is a lie. Apple is actively engaged in restraint of trade via illegal monopolistic control of the app store. In fact, the whole notion of an exclusive Apple Store without alternatives is monopolistic and flagrant restraint of trade.

Notice the response to question 5? Not one word about the banning of Netshare, not one word about Adobe Flash being permanently banned from the iPhone.

But here's the lucky part for Apple: the FCC, FTC, and just about every other govt. regulatory body charged with oversight of corporate behavior are so full of cowards and layabouts that nothing substantive will come of any of this no matter how much Apple lies in depositions.

Apple is actively banning any and all products that show even the slightest potential of interfering with the iPhone revenue stream, not only Apples but ATT's as well (Until Apple decides to kick them to the curb, of course.) Everybody knows this. It is no secret. This "response" is a big puff of smoke up the FCC's rectum.

Please spare me the Monopolistic tactic over a phone that has 5% of the mobile market. Your head is so far up Google's rectum you're able to tickle it's tonsils.

If you haven't realized by now Google and Apple are competitors. They are out to make a profit just like Apple.

If Apple doesn't like that GoogleVoice puts their OS to Shame and has additional features that better the iPhone then Apple is Anti Competitive and will go down during this investigation.

I have an iPhone but their answers were complete BS considering what has already been approved.

Google used this opportunity to not only make Apple Look Bad but Also AT&T.

Steve, wake up from your coma. Get Phil out of answering emails to public shame (only when they hit the press) and start addressing the OS issues and hire more than 40 people to check apps. You charge $9,000 for a netbook (yes I know they don't have one and it certainly will only cost you your first Born and be tied to an AT&T subsidized contract for 2 years). I think you can afford it.